Ubi Petrus, ibi... schismatici?
#21
(07-05-2019, 09:44 AM)Paul Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 02:08 AM)TruthWhichIsChrist Wrote: This strikes me as a good example of excessive legalism. They have apostolic succession and valid sacraments. They are part of the true faith, within the Church.

Apostolic succession isn't enough without submission to the Pope, and, after Vatican I, rejecting papal infallibility is also heresy. Our Lord made Peter the head of His Church, to refuse to submit to Peter is to reject the way our Lord set up His Church, and that's not legalism.

If submission to Rome isn't needed, then Henry VIII did nothing wrong. Are the Anglicans part of the Church, too? I guess all those English martyrs just threw their lives away needlessly.

Indeed; and Our Lord willed for the power of orders to be exercised only dependently upon jurisdiction, which can only be passed to bishops through the Apostolic See, as clearly taught by Ad Apostolorum Principis. 

False ecumenism is a direct insult to the martyrs.
[-] The following 3 users Like Spes_nostra's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, yablabo
Reply
#22
(07-05-2019, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 09:08 AM)Spes_nostra Wrote: Basic ecclesiology is legalism? Too bad someone didn't notify the Angelic Doctor! 

Well, someone did.  And after He did, Aquinas said his works appeared to be so much straw.

:D :D :D

This is not a good interpretation of that story. It's kind of insulting, actually.
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
[-] The following 1 user Likes Filiolus's post:
  • Spes_nostra
Reply
#23
(07-05-2019, 02:37 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 09:08 AM)Spes_nostra Wrote: Basic ecclesiology is legalism? Too bad someone didn't notify the Angelic Doctor! 

Well, someone did.  And after He did, Aquinas said his works appeared to be so much straw.

:D :D :D

This is not a good interpretation of that story. It's kind of insulting, actually.

Just to clarify, one shouldn't interpret the "so much straw" story to mean that Aquinas realized he'd wasted his whole life on legalism. I meant to say that to interpret it that way is kind of insulting to him and to people who spend their time reading him.
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
[-] The following 1 user Likes Filiolus's post:
  • Spes_nostra
Reply
#24
(07-05-2019, 03:53 PM)Filiolus Wrote: Just to clarify, one shouldn't interpret the "so much straw" story to mean that Aquinas realized he'd wasted his whole life on legalism. I meant to say that to interpret it that way is kind of insulting to him and to people who spend their time reading him.

It wasn't my intent to be insulting, but rather a little sardonic.  It is peculiar that the West places so much stock in Aquinas over the rest of the Church's learned teachers, or the Fathers themselves, among whom, at least in the Catholic East, Aquinas is not numbered.  I'm sure the understanding of the West is not that Aquinas is the sum of all there is to know theologically.  But you have to admit, given the knowledge of some people of the Summa, and almost complete ignorance of anyone else's theological writings, it's an understandable impression one can get.  

Aquinas may not have meant that all of his writings were worthless by calling them so much straw.  On the other hand, he may have.  He never clarified, but when asked, he merely reiterated that his writings were so much straw.  And then he was dead, what, three months later?  When it's possible that what Christ revealed to him led him to believe that his writings were nothing in comparison, though still of value; or if his writings were straw such that they were of no value in comparison to what was revealed to him; or if even his revelation showed him that he missed the mark all together: it's very peculiar that the Church then defined his teaching as that of the Church, and that theology and philosophy students feel secure studying him so much to the exclusion of others.  That does deserve a little mocking in jest.
Reply
#25
(07-05-2019, 04:48 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 03:53 PM)Filiolus Wrote: Just to clarify, one shouldn't interpret the "so much straw" story to mean that Aquinas realized he'd wasted his whole life on legalism. I meant to say that to interpret it that way is kind of insulting to him and to people who spend their time reading him.

It wasn't my intent to be insulting, but rather a little sardonic.  It is peculiar that the West places so much stock in Aquinas over the rest of the Church's learned teachers, or the Fathers themselves, among whom, at least in the Catholic East, Aquinas is not numbered.  I'm sure the understanding of the West is not that Aquinas is the sum of all there is to know theologically.  But you have to admit, given the knowledge of some people of the Summa, and almost complete ignorance of anyone else's theological writings, it's an understandable impression one can get.  

Aquinas may not have meant that all of his writings were worthless by calling them so much straw.  On the other hand, he may have.  He never clarified, but when asked, he merely reiterated that his writings were so much straw.  And then he was dead, what, three months later?  When it's possible that what Christ revealed to him led him to believe that his writings were nothing in comparison, though still of value; or if his writings were straw such that they were of no value in comparison to what was revealed to him; or if even his revelation showed him that he missed the mark all together: it's very peculiar that the Church then defined his teaching as that of the Church, and that theology and philosophy students feel secure studying him so much to the exclusion of others.  That does deserve a little mocking in jest.

Here's para. 45 of Pascendi Dominici Gregis: 

In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. Aeterni Patris). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our Predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their observance, and let this apply also to the Superiors of religious institutions. Further let Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment. 
Reply
#26
(07-05-2019, 04:48 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 03:53 PM)Filiolus Wrote: Just to clarify, one shouldn't interpret the "so much straw" story to mean that Aquinas realized he'd wasted his whole life on legalism. I meant to say that to interpret it that way is kind of insulting to him and to people who spend their time reading him.

It wasn't my intent to be insulting, but rather a little sardonic.  It is peculiar that the West places so much stock in Aquinas over the rest of the Church's learned teachers, or the Fathers themselves, among whom, at least in the Catholic East, Aquinas is not numbered.  I'm sure the understanding of the West is not that Aquinas is the sum of all there is to know theologically.  But you have to admit, given the knowledge of some people of the Summa, and almost complete ignorance of anyone else's theological writings, it's an understandable impression one can get.

Aquinas gets the elevated reputation in the Church that he has, not because he was more original than the Fathers, but because he synthesized their works and weaved them into a beautiful tapestry of theological understanding. His scholasticism gets so much emphasis in the Church because it is so effective of conveying the beliefs of the Church.

I get that some people are turned off by this and his straightforward rationalistic approach to the supernatural and preternatural can be overwhelming. I personally have more of a preference for the Augustinian view (who Aquinas draws a lot from), Christian Platonism and the mysticism of the Fathers, but that does not mean I don't see Aquinas as the best of what the Church has to offer in terms of clarity and knowledge in theology.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • Filiolus
Reply
#27
(07-05-2019, 05:14 PM)Spes_nostra Wrote: Here's para. 45 of Pascendi Dominici Gregis: 

In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. Aeterni Patris). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our Predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their observance, and let this apply also to the Superiors of religious institutions. Further let Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment. 

Thank you for proving my point!
Reply
#28
(07-05-2019, 05:51 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 05:14 PM)Spes_nostra Wrote: Here's para. 45 of Pascendi Dominici Gregis: 

In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. Aeterni Patris). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our Predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their observance, and let this apply also to the Superiors of religious institutions. Further let Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment. 

Thank you for proving my point!

You're welcome!  :)

And that point, rather than being something "peculiar", actually has papal approbation.
Reply
#29
(07-04-2019, 02:27 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-04-2019, 12:23 AM)TruthWhichIsChrist Wrote: Yep, they also believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

They claim to. In reality they are a group of churches fighting amongst themselves on national and ethnic lines. They are a rudderless navy with no overall command. They are outside the Church of Christ and I am horrified and scandalised at Francis's giving away the Patrimony of the Roman Church to schismatics. And to Constantinople? Not even one of the ancient Sees! If he wanted to give away St Peter's relics, at least give them to Antioch where St Peter was Bishop before he went to Rome!

With all due respect, I think it's inaccurate to say that the Orthodox are fighting each other along "national and ethnic lines." What I mean is if your saying that, for example, the Russians think they are better than the Greeks because of their Russian ethnicity. From what I've seen, its mainly fighting over who will hold the dominant position in the Orthodox world.

While I can't be for certain, I would say that Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church for geopolitical reasons. Specifically, to undercut Moscow's power and influence in Ukraine. Emails published Wikileaks would seem to imply Constantinople might be allied with the US (which critics might call being a US puppet) (.https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ISTANBUL73_a.html?fbclid=IwAR0Y2_mvZsIFXhhb0G5p9lxgtDWQ_OU9JlnXDWDWg5X_2UE8QqdlA-QKTW8) But then again, it could also be easily argued that the Moscow Patriarchate is a puppet of the Kremlin and Putin. In fact, Kirill has been labeled the "Tobacco Patriarch" and has been accused of being a former KGB agent (https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mi...nd_the_KGB).
Reply
#30
(07-06-2019, 12:22 AM)Echo Wrote:
(07-04-2019, 02:27 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-04-2019, 12:23 AM)TruthWhichIsChrist Wrote: Yep, they also believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

They claim to. In reality they are a group of churches fighting amongst themselves on national and ethnic lines. They are a rudderless navy with no overall command. They are outside the Church of Christ and I am horrified and scandalised at Francis's giving away the Patrimony of the Roman Church to schismatics. And to Constantinople? Not even one of the ancient Sees! If he wanted to give away St Peter's relics, at least give them to Antioch where St Peter was Bishop before he went to Rome!

With all due respect, I think it's inaccurate accurate to say that the Orthodox are fighting each other along "national and ethnic lines." What I mean is if your saying that, for example, the Russians think they are better than the Greeks because of their Russian ethnicity. From what I've seen, its mainly fighting over who will hold the dominant position in the Orthodox world.

While I can't be for certain, I would say that Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church for geopolitical reasons. Specifically, to undercut Moscow's power and influence in Ukraine. Emails published Wikileaks would seem to imply Constantinople might be allied with the US (which critics might call being a US puppet) (.https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ISTANBUL73_a.html?fbclid=IwAR0Y2_mvZsIFXhhb0G5p9lxgtDWQ_OU9JlnXDWDWg5X_2UE8QqdlA-QKTW8) But then again, it could also be easily argued that the Moscow Patriarchate is a puppet of the Kremlin and Putin. In fact, Kirill has been labeled the "Tobacco Patriarch" and has been accused of being a former KGB agent (https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mi...nd_the_KGB).

Fixed that for you.
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)